Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 



       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> UK and Ireland Politics
Stevie

CAMERON WILL CUT NUMBER OF SCOTTISH WESTMINSTER MPs

I was wondering if anyone else had noticed D Cam's decision to cut the number of Scottish MPs to Westminster.

During PM question time when D Cam managed to somehow make dumble personally responsible for the 'snouts in the trough expenses scandal'.

(Do you think I've just coined the name of this mess for future generations?)

Anway, during said onslaught to which dumble remained... dumb.  He suggested fewer MPs are required at Westminster.  The truth being his Conservative voters and MPs are whinging on about how unfair it is the Scots are getting special treatment.
This would of course hurt the Labour Party and not the Tories.

D Cam doesn't understand the effects his Thatcherite stance will have in Scotland.  I thought he was cleverer than that.  Not as clever as Tony but cleverer than that.

How on Earth did dumble manage to kick out Tony, the difference in their intellects is skyscraper and bungalow. I suppose Tony helped...
iainmhor

A lot of us are just looking forward to the day when no Scottish MPs sit in Westmonster.
Dave Coull

Re: CAMERON WILL CUT NUMBER OF SCOTTISH WESTMINSTER MPs

Bravehand wrote:
How on Earth did dumble manage to kick out Tony, the difference in their intellects is skyscraper and bungalow
While I have a low opinion of Gordon Brown, I don't share your admiration of Blair. I see no evidence of any huge intellect at work where Tony is concerned. Like Maggie Thatcher, he was a prime minister who got credited with actions and with ideas which were actually initiated by other people. Also like Maggie Thatcher, he just happened to be lucky.

In Maggie Thatcher's case, the one idea which really was  hers  was the poll tax, which was the disaster that brought her down. In Blair's case, the one idea that really was  his  was taking the UK into the Iraq war.
The Lithgae Jambo

Re: CAMERON WILL CUT NUMBER OF SCOTTISH WESTMINSTER MPs

Bravehand wrote:
I was wondering if anyone else had noticed D Cam's decision to cut the number of Scottish MPs to Westminster.

During PM question time when D Cam managed to somehow make dumble personally responsible for the 'snouts in the trough expenses scandal'.

(Do you think I've just coined the name of this mess for future generations?)

Anway, during said onslaught to which dumble remained... dumb.  He suggested fewer MPs are required at Westminster.  The truth being his Conservative voters and MPs are whinging on about how unfair it is the Scots are getting special treatment.
This would of course hurt the Labour Party and not the Tories.


This is the exchange as reported in Hansard

Mr. Cameron: Let me ask the Prime Minister, in short order: how does he, in this current recession, when businesses are facing such difficult times and people are having to make such reductions in their own expenditure, justify the £10,000 communications allowance?

The Prime Minister: In this period, all members of the Government have frozen their salaries. I have myself refused to take the pension that may be given to any serving Prime Minister. I have refused the London allowance that is available to me. I think that all Members of the House have to look at what they can do in their own situations. As far as the communications allowance is concerned, it is open to the House to look at all these things, but a vote of the House took place. It is always open to Members to propose changing it.

Mr. Cameron: The Prime Minister says that it is open to the House. That is so often his answer. What we want is some leadership to cut some of these costs. He seems to have such a tin ear to these issues. In an age where we are going to have to ask the public sector to do more for less, should we not start with ourselves? We have in the House of Commons 646— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Leader of the Opposition speak.

Mr. Cameron: I am just making the point— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have asked hon. Members to be quiet. I do not expect more noise.

Mr. Cameron: The House of Commons has 646 MPs. We have one of the largest lower Houses in the western world—larger than in Spain, France, Germany and Italy. In fact, if we take the Lords and Commons together, we have more political representatives than any country other than China. Should we not reduce the cost of politics by asking the next Boundary Commission to reduce the size of the House of Commons?

The Prime Minister: Many of the countries that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about are federal systems that have not only central Parliaments but federal Parliaments. I do not know whether he is proposing that we make an instant judgment now to reduce the number of MPs by 50, 100 or 150. Those are matters that have to go before an independent commission and people have to look at the boundaries. On all these issues, I am trying to build a political consensus on change. I am trying to build a consensus across all— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must be heard as well.

13 May 2009 : Column 850

The Prime Minister: I am trying to build a political consensus on change. It is unfortunate that we cannot today highlight those issues on which we agree that action needs to be taken immediately. That is the way forward for this House to restore trust in its affairs. We have got to deal immediately with the issues ahead of us. We have got to take the extreme action that I propose—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to support it—and, at the same time, we have got to reform the expenses system. I think that today is a time for us all to come together to make the changes that are necessary.

Mr. Cameron: I must say to the Prime Minister that Spain and France are not federal systems, and they have much smaller Parliaments than we do. The Prime Minister says again that he wants to have an independent commission. I sometimes wonder whether— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Leader of the Opposition speak. [Interruption.] Order. Dr. Howells, please; the Leader of the Opposition must be able to speak.

Mr. Cameron: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister needs an independent commission to work out whether to have tea or coffee in the morning. Whether by putting expenses online, by cutting the cost of politics by abolishing the communications allowance, or by making this place smaller and more efficient, is it not time to wake up and see what is going on in the country? Is it not time for us to see ourselves as the rest of the country sees us? Is it not time to stop the talking and the endless committees, and start showing some real leadership to deliver some real change? How can we bring about the change this country needs if we cannot change ourselves?

I really think trying to suggest that that was an attack on Scotland is more than a little wide of the mark.
Stevie

Re: CAMERON WILL CUT NUMBER OF SCOTTISH WESTMINSTER MPs

The Lithgae Jambo wrote:
I really think trying to suggest that that was an attack on Scotland is more than a little wide of the mark.


I don't think so, not given the arguments related to the West Lothian question, the disgruntled English voters, the support for Labour in Scotland and lack therein of Tory.
Cruachan

Re: CAMERON WILL CUT NUMBER OF SCOTTISH WESTMINSTER MPs

The Lithgae Jambo wrote:
?[/i]

I really think trying to suggest that that was an attack on Scotland is more than a little wide of the mark.



I agree this was much more about Cameron attempting to position himself - much better than Brown past week - - and his party to profit electorally from the expenses row.

At the same there is no doubt that reducing the number of Westminster MPs across the UK would beneft the Conservative Party - and go a little way to addressing the "Scottish problem"/West Lothian question.  There would inevitably be proportionately less Scottish (Labour) MPs and that is a bonus to Cameron.

Aside from the cost issue, with 129 MSPs dealing with most constutuency  issues of relevance to the electorate in Scotland,, what do Scottish Westminster MPs (of any party) actually do all day?  Vote on English education and health matters I suppose.  Just another contradiction in the end days of the Union.
Stevie

It does make a huge difference as far as a hung parliament and influence is concerned.

I do get the various arguments, wasn't expressing an opinion but I was observing D Cam's comments and his reasons for it.

Anyway, he's just firing a shot across the bough to warn people what he's got in mind - the code will be well understood by English voters.
Aventinian

Cameron supports less MPs across the board, it has nothing to do with Scotland and England.

The fact is, however, there are more MPs from Scotland than are deserved by its population. If he really did want to be fair, then that should be addressed to an extent. Some disparity between constituencies, regions and whatever else will always exist, however.
Holebender

Aventinian wrote:
Cameron supports less MPs

Cameron supports fewer MPs.
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
Aventinian wrote:
Cameron supports less MPs

Cameron supports fewer MPs.


Good call.
Shagpile

Aventinian wrote:
Holebender wrote:
Aventinian wrote:
Cameron supports less MPs

Cameron supports fewer MPs.


Good call.


See..... brdges mended, hands outstreached.

drunken

 

Cool it....... carefull.......

Reluctant Hero

It seems everyone is getting in on the act.  

David Starkey (aka ar$e) on This Week said the best way to reduce the number of MPs is to get rid of the Scots and the Welsh.

Well, we would gladly go, if you would just let us.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_week/8063131.stm
Luke P

Re: CAMERON WILL CUT NUMBER OF SCOTTISH WESTMINSTER MPs

Bravehand wrote:
I was wondering if anyone else had noticed D Cam's decision to cut the number of Scottish MPs to Westminster.

During PM question time when D Cam managed to somehow make dumble personally responsible for the 'snouts in the trough expenses scandal'.

(Do you think I've just coined the name of this mess for future generations?)

Anway, during said onslaught to which dumble remained... dumb.  He suggested fewer MPs are required at Westminster.  The truth being his Conservative voters and MPs are whinging on about how unfair it is the Scots are getting special treatment.
This would of course hurt the Labour Party and not the Tories.

D Cam doesn't understand the effects his Thatcherite stance will have in Scotland.  I thought he was cleverer than that.  Not as clever as Tony but cleverer than that.

How on Earth did dumble manage to kick out Tony, the difference in their intellects is skyscraper and bungalow. I suppose Tony helped...


Before devolution Scotland (8% of UK pop.) had 11% of MPs. Since devolution 9%. Lopping off a further 7 Scottish MPs would bring it down to 8%, proportional representation on UK affairs -  considering  Scottish business is covered pretty well by Brussels and to a lesser extent Holyrood.

My MP, himself a good Northumbrian from Jedburgh, said: "As you are probably aware the Conservative Party is committed to ensuring that Scottish MPs at Westminster should not be able to stop English and Welsh  business going through Parliament if it supported by a majority of English and Welsh MPs. We believe that this re-balancing consequential on devolution will go a long way to solving some of the problems in the relationship between Westminster and Scotland."

Don't quite know how they propose to do that, but it might be an awful lot simpler to make a separate English parliament if it's coming to that. But then I'm not a Tory and I don't tend to take them too seriously, or Labour for that matter.
Dave Coull

Re: CAMERON WILL CUT NUMBER OF SCOTTISH WESTMINSTER MPs

Luke P wrote:
it might be an awful lot simpler to make a separate English parliament
England will effectively have its own parliament when Scotland becomes independent. Every move by an English politician which is perceived in Scotland as being anti-Scottish strengthens the move towards independence. The same goes for some of your own utterances, Luke P. Keep it up.
Fidget

Re: CAMERON WILL CUT NUMBER OF SCOTTISH WESTMINSTER MPs

Dave Coull wrote:
Every move by an English politician which is perceived in Scotland as being anti-Scottish strengthens the move towards independence.


So where's this referendum on independence then if that's really the case?
Dave Coull

Re: CAMERON WILL CUT NUMBER OF SCOTTISH WESTMINSTER MPs

I wrote:
Every move by an English politician which is perceived in Scotland as being anti-Scottish strengthens the move towards independence.
Fidget wrote:
So where's this referendum on independence
It's not up to me to deliver a referendum. I campaigned for a referendum on independence when the Scottish government was a Labour/LibDem coalition, then right after the SNP took office I demonstrated outside the Scottish Parliament demanding "Referendum NOW   -   independence   -   yes or no". It looks like I will finally get what I've been campaigning for next year. Alex Salmond and co plan to put their bill for a referendum to the Scottish parliament in a bit over six months' time, in late January 2010. Now, the Labour, LibDem, and Tory MSPs actually add up to a majority. But I'm not convinced they will all vote against the bill. If some of them abstain, then the bill will be passed. If it does get passed, then the actual referendum will take place in the autumn of next year.
Fidget

Re: CAMERON WILL CUT NUMBER OF SCOTTISH WESTMINSTER MPs

Dave Coull wrote:
It's not up to me to deliver a referendum.


I didn't, even for a nanosecond, think it was.

There's nothing stopping the current administration having a referedum either...oh... asides from it not actually wanting to have one... cause if it really did, it would be having it!  Laughing
Holebender

Have you the slightest concept of how a Parliament works? Does the term "minority government" mean anything to you? Explain to us all how, exactly, the SNP could hold a referendum without securing a majority vote in Parliament.

Your pathetic outbursts of the past few days have convinced me that it is highly unlikely you will provide any sort of rational response, but I live in hope.
Stevie

Holebender wrote:
but I live in hope.


You have more faith in the human condition than I do oh holey one.
Morph

iainmhor wrote:
A lot of us are just looking forward to the day when no Scottish MPs sit in Westmonster.


Yeah ill take no Scottish MP's if it mean they sit in an Independent Scottish parliament instead
Luke P

Reducing the number of Scots in Westminster to proportional representation - i.e. reasonably fair - while English, Welsh and Northern Irish MPS have no say in Scottish matters is not really cause for indignation - unless what one wants is "equality - but only for us."
Dave Coull

Re: CAMERON WILL CUT NUMBER OF SCOTTISH WESTMINSTER MPs

Aventinian wrote:
there are more MPs from Scotland than are deserved by its population
Aventinian wrote:
that should be addressed to an extent
Luke P wrote:
Reducing the number of Scots in Westminster to proportional representation - i.e. reasonably fair - while English, Welsh and Northern Irish MPS have no say in Scottish matters is not really cause for indignation
I'm not aware of ANYBODY here on this forum likely to get indignant about this. As you can see from the above quotes, Aventinian, who is both Tory and unionist, sympathises with moves to make "representation" a bit more equal between different parts of the UK. On the other hand, quite a lot of folk on here are in favour of reducing the number of MPs representing Scottish constituencies at Westminster to ZERO, because they favour independence.
I wrote:
Every move by an English politician which is perceived in Scotland as being anti-Scottish strengthens the move towards independence.
Note that I was very careful NOT to say "every move which IS anti-Scottish". It is quite enough that it should be
Quote:
PERCEIVED in Scotland as being anti-Scottish
So, even though it might be an "accident" that David Cameron favouring a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs will benefit the Tories, and even if the objections to this from members of the Labour Party may have an element of their own party-political interest about them, nevertheless, all moves which reduce Scottish influence within the UK benefit the cause of independence. So, keep it up, David Cameron, Aventinian, and Luke P.
Luke P

An awful lot of things seem to be perceived as anti-Scottish that are not.
Dave Coull

Luke P wrote:
An awful lot of things seem to be perceived as anti-Scottish that are not.
How unfortunate for the Unionist cause.........
Luke P

Wife: "Stop beating me"

Husband: "I don't beat you.

Wife: "Yes you do"

Husband: "No I don't, I love you."

Wife: "Beat me or I'll scream"

Husband: "No. I love you."

Wife: "Go on beat me, please."

Husband: "erm"

Wife: "Go on beat me you b****d"

Husband walks away.


I see your logic...
babykitten

Re: CAMERON WILL CUT NUMBER OF SCOTTISH WESTMINSTER MPs

Luke P wrote:
Before devolution Scotland (8% of UK pop.) had 11% of MPs. Since devolution 9%. Lopping off a further 7 Scottish MPs would bring it down to 8%, proportional representation on UK affairs -  considering  Scottish business is covered pretty well by Brussels and to a lesser extent Holyrood.

My MP, himself a good Northumbrian from Jedburgh, said: "As you are probably aware the Conservative Party is committed to ensuring that Scottish MPs at Westminster should not be able to stop English and Welsh  business going through Parliament if it supported by a majority of English and Welsh MPs. We believe that this re-balancing consequential on devolution will go a long way to solving some of the problems in the relationship between Westminster and Scotland."

Don't quite know how they propose to do that, but it might be an awful lot simpler to make a separate English parliament if it's coming to that. But then I'm not a Tory and I don't tend to take them too seriously, or Labour for that matter.

Scotland currently has 8.5% of the UK population so 9% of MPs is almost correct.  This 'imbalance' results from the lower birth rate over the years in Scotland, which has resulted in England achieving ever more share of the UK population as time goes on.

However, even when we had 11% of MPs it was hardly enough to actually influence the outcome of UK elections one way or the other.  I will point out again, for those that think Scotland has decided that we've got a Labour government right now, that London alone returned more Labour MPs at the last general election than the whole of Scotland.
babykitten

Luke P wrote:
Reducing the number of Scots in Westminster to proportional representation - i.e. reasonably fair - while English, Welsh and Northern Irish MPS have no say in Scottish matters is not really cause for indignation - unless what one wants is "equality - but only for us."

Luke, the thing is that there are actually very few, if any, English-only matters.  The reason for this is that English spending directly affects what Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland) get because of the Barnett formula.  This is because Barnett funding is decided as a proportion of English spending, not UK spending.

Therefore, it could be argued that Scottish MPs are perfectly within their rights to vote on seemingly English-only matters.

However, I would point out that the SNP do NOT vote on matters which are 'English-only'.  Scottish Labour MPs do though, which is no surprise given that they are unionist to the core, and simply following the UK government line.

If you want to solve the West Lothian question then you'd be much better off supporting Scottish independence.
babykitten

Luke P wrote:
Wife: "Stop beating me"

Husband: "I don't beat you.

Wife: "Yes you do"

Husband: "No I don't, I love you."

Wife: "Beat me or I'll scream"

Husband: "No. I love you."

Wife: "Go on beat me, please."

Husband: "erm"

Wife: "Go on beat me you b****d"

Husband walks away.


I see your logic...


Hilarious, irrelevant, emotive crap.
Luke P

babykitten wrote:
Luke P wrote:
Wife: "Stop beating me"

Husband: "I don't beat you.

Wife: "Yes you do"

Husband: "No I don't, I love you."

Wife: "Beat me or I'll scream"

Husband: "No. I love you."

Wife: "Go on beat me, please."

Husband: "erm"

Wife: "Go on beat me you b****d"

Husband walks away.


I see your logic...


Hilarious, irrelevant, emotive crap.


Hilarious - thank you!

Irrelevant - if you followed the thread you'd understand

Emotive - absolutely, as Scots nationalism does seem to be driven by emotion
Holebender

Unionism is driven my emotion; all that nostalgic yearning for the good old days of Empire, all the family ties tugging at the heartstrings stuff. The independence movement is all about the better governance and improving the democracy of where we live. It's very rational.
Alasdair

Holebender wrote:
Unionism is driven my emotion; all that nostalgic yearning for the good old days of Empire, all the family ties tugging at the heartstrings stuff. The independence movement is all about the better governance and improving the democracy of where we live. It's very rational.


All very true, but it would be disengenuous to suggest that Scottish Nationalism had nothing to do with emotion ... it's just that it's not seen as 'quite right' to express it within the pro-independence movement; being emotive usually results in some emotively applied label along the anti-this-that-or-the-other.
Holebender

My point is that unionists almost inevitably come up with this "emotional" label when dismissing support for independence without ever seeing the even more emotional nature of their unionism.
Luke P

Re: CAMERON WILL CUT NUMBER OF SCOTTISH WESTMINSTER MPs

babykitten wrote:
I will point out again, for those that think Scotland has decided that we've got a Labour government right now, that London alone returned more Labour MPs at the last general election than the whole of Scotland.


I would never argue Scotland returned a Labour government at the last election. It was the Labour party supporters of Great Britain that elected Blair. Similarly it was the Tory part supporters of great Britain that elected Maggie in 79, not England.

Aunt Morag gives you £20 on your birthday, tight uncle Kenny gives you £5, your two sisters give you £10 each, your dad gives you £40 and gay cousin Rupert sends you a cheque for £15 making £100 in total. You go and buy a video game for £50. Who paid for it?
Red Justice

There is a good chance Scotland will vote largely SNP and Labour at the next general election but we will likely get a Tory government.

Only independence can help serve the interests of Scotland by voters electing MSPs only and local government representatives in a Free Scotland.
magister ludi

Re: CAMERON WILL CUT NUMBER OF SCOTTISH WESTMINSTER MPs

Luke P wrote:

Aunt Morag gives you £20 on your birthday, tight uncle Kenny gives you £5, your two sisters give you £10 each, your dad gives you £40 and gay cousin Rupert sends you a cheque for £15 making £100 in total. You go and buy a video game for £50. Who paid for it?



you're a fan of the Broons I see.....and I'm betting the two sisters are called Maggie and Daphne
Stevie

Your posts have a wit and originality not to be discouraged.

More power to you magister.
Aventinian

Re: CAMERON WILL CUT NUMBER OF SCOTTISH WESTMINSTER MPs

babykitten wrote:
Scotland currently has 8.5% of the UK population so 9% of MPs is almost correct.  This 'imbalance' results from the lower birth rate over the years in Scotland, which has resulted in England achieving ever more share of the UK population as time goes on.


An interesting point, and one I admit I had not considered.

babykitten wrote:
However, I would point out that the SNP do NOT vote on matters which are 'English-only'.  Scottish Labour MPs do though, which is no surprise given that they are unionist to the core, and simply following the UK government line.


What do the SNP count as an English-only matter then, considering your proviso above? Bills with absolutely no spending consequences? Does this actually result in the SNP not voting on bills, or is it really just theory?

Quote:
If you want to solve the West Lothian question then you'd be much better off supporting Scottish independence.


Possibly the most extreme case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater that I can imagine.


-----------------------

Holebender wrote:
Unionism is driven my emotion; all that nostalgic yearning for the good old days of Empire, all the family ties tugging at the heartstrings stuff.


One thread of Unionism which is, in fact, just British nationalism. Oddly enough, Scottish nationalism is what you support - precisely the same ideology.

Quote:
The independence movement is all about the better governance and improving the democracy of where we live. It's very rational.


No it isn't. I know fine well that most of you would sacrifice our economic standing, standard of life and political security to be in an independent Scotland.
Alasdair

Re: CAMERON WILL CUT NUMBER OF SCOTTISH WESTMINSTER MPs

Aventinian wrote:
Quote:
The independence movement is all about the better governance and improving the democracy of where we live. It's very rational.


No it isn't. I know fine well that most of you would sacrifice our economic standing, standard of life and political security to be in an independent Scotland.


Maybe so, but only on the basis that the pain would be short term and the gain long term.  Besides, if the country were to fail catastrophically we'd all be able to sit around our fires with the smug satisfaction that we'd done it to ourselves as we toss another item of furniture onto the flames and attempt to keep warm ... it's all about taking responsibility Smile
babykitten

Re: CAMERON WILL CUT NUMBER OF SCOTTISH WESTMINSTER MPs

Aventinian wrote:

What do the SNP count as an English-only matter then, considering your proviso above? Bills with absolutely no spending consequences? Does this actually result in the SNP not voting on bills, or is it really just theory?

Good question.  I'm not sure how it is defined but I'm pretty sure that it is not simply a theoretical stance.  I don't have examples but perhaps someone else could furnish details of such a case?

What's for sure though, is that the SNP don't stand for election outwith Scotland and that their participation in Westminister is to represent Scotland's interests first and foremost.  There would be no need to vote on truly English-only issues as there is no electorate there to represent.

Because of the Barnett formula there are very few examples of English-only issues, as already stated.  Most votes will have UK-wide scope, but even those that superficially are about England, usually affect Scotland (and Wales and NI).

Another interesting question is this.  Can and do English/Welsh/NI MPs vote on reserved matters relating to Scotland only?  What was the situation before devolution?

There are very many more examples of Scottish-only issues due to the separate legal system (UK-wide issues effectively using the English legal system) and the fact that the Barnett formula calculates Scottish expenditure as a proportion of English expenditure, and not the other way round.
Aventinian wrote:

Quote:
If you want to solve the West Lothian question then you'd be much better off supporting Scottish independence.


Possibly the most extreme case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater that I can imagine.

Well, indeed, if that is one's sole reason for supporting independence!  But this is, of course, not the only positive aspect of independence.
babykitten

Re: CAMERON WILL CUT NUMBER OF SCOTTISH WESTMINSTER MPs

Aventinian wrote:

No it isn't. I know fine well that most of you would sacrifice our economic standing, standard of life and political security to be in an independent Scotland.

I'm glad that you know this Aventinian, because clearly you then understand that most of us are actually serious about it, and not simply looking for quick riches (as per the oil-grabbing accusations of unionists).

I think you would find that if it truly was the case that our standard of living would be utterly destroyed by independence then most of us would be against it, through simple pragmatism.  But something would have to be seriously up for that to happen, like for example, being economically bullied by a larger neighbour, which I don't see as a risk for Scotland.

I can't think of any examples of independence that have directly resulted in the destruction of that country's economy.  You may cite Zimbabwe or other such disasters but Zimbabwe's problems are not due to being independent, they are due to having a nutter in charge for far too long.

Independence for any nation is bound to change the economic landscape, but the changes will not be so shocking as to cause widespread upheaval.

Come independence day everything will be very much the same.  Things will change gradually and people will get on with things.

I'm not sure what you mean by "political security".  I would guess that you are referring to the security of being part of the UK, with all the respect (ha ha) and clout that gives us in the world.

Well, I'm sorry, but I feel very much less secure than I've ever felt being a part of the UK, due to this disgraceful Labour government and its foreign policy.

For the record, I think that independence will bring economic benefits to Scotland.  I don't think that this will happen immediately, but I do think that the oil revenues (dwindling though they are) will be very useful in the initial years.  Even without them though, I think the whisky duties will also be especially useful for Scotland.  I see no reason why Scotland can't match the remaining UK's economic performance at the very least.  Even if this modest goal is achieved, then we will all be better off, because Scotland consistently under-performs as part of the UK, due to policy being set in London, for London.
Luke P

Holebender wrote:
My point is that unionists almost inevitably come up with this "emotional" label when dismissing support for independence without ever seeing the even more emotional nature of their unionism.


There is an emotional slant to unionism but I am fairly convinced it is much more a pragmatic movement. The union itself was no love affair - at best it was a marriage of convenience, pragmatically entered into for economic advantage. I don't think there was much love between the kingdoms of Scotland and England in 1707 - precisely one of the reasons in favour of the union. King James' Scottish entourage used to get beat up in the back alleys of Holborn.

Nationalism and separatism are very linked to a restoration of lost pride, a sense of being deprived of recognition. It's not invalid, but this is a deeply emotional issue and it's so fundamental in the psyche it is a slightly risky one especially when it determines the future of a nation as it can so easily override common sense.
Holebender

So why do you let your emotional attachment to the UK override the common sense practicalities of Scotland's population looking after its own affairs in its own best interests?
Luke P

Holebender wrote:
So why do you let your emotional attachment to the UK override the common sense practicalities of Scotland's population looking after its own affairs in its own best interests?


It is more a pragmatic attachment to the UK than an emotional one. Scotland's population is already pursuing its own affairs to its own interest. It has home rule.

When a majority of Scottish voters vote for independence I will not be blocking the buses on Princes Street. So far there is not this majority and the claim by nationalists that they are the real champions of Scotland's best interests is conceit.

I am warning that the emotional need to restore Scotland's injured pride will be injurious to Scotland and of course the UK, if it merely results in splitting the UK and remaining in the EU. Not independence, just settlement of an old grudge. Pragmatic arguments I am willing to accept, especially I respect those who want real independence for real reasons.
Stevie

Keep the England flag by all means but change Nationalist to either English nationalist or British nationalist.

At the moment you are being dishonest on this site.
Luke P

Bravehand wrote:
Keep the England flag by all means but change Nationalist to either English nationalist or British nationalist.

At the moment you are being dishonest on this site.


You're mistaken I'm afraid. It's a Northumbrian flag, and I can't control what it says under my name...
magister ludi

Luke P wrote:


Nationalism and separatism are very linked to a restoration of lost pride, a sense of being deprived of recognition.



Reminds me of an Asterix the Gaul cartoon:

Asterix was talking to Obelix about the differences between the various races/tribes .
Gauls, Goths, Jutes, Iberians, Vikings, Visigoths.etc.
(The usual european national  stereotypes were used  by Goscinny to great effect).
After being informed of the nature and character of the Britons, Obelix asked ..'but what about the Picts in the North?'

Asterix replied ' ...much the same as the rest of the Britons....just touchier'
Stevie

Luke P wrote:
Bravehand wrote:
Keep the England flag by all means but change Nationalist to either English nationalist or British nationalist.

At the moment you are being dishonest on this site.


You're mistaken I'm afraid. It's a Northumbrian flag, and I can't control what it says under my name...


Well, ask azzuri with a PM to mark UKIP instead of Nationalist.  I'm sure he'll be happy to.  And we here would be happy to discuss with you about whatever you like.  It was obvious you were a Brit Nat or UKIP from your first post

Anyway, make the changes and we can forget about it.  

Never seen a Northumbrian flag.  Looks like the St George's cross with a hand.

The nation of Scotland is a collection of tribes.  It is the nation of Scotland and I would be proud to call an Englishman a fellow Scot if he was proud to be part of the nation of Scotland.

Genetics can go and bugger itself.  The nation is the history, culture (what's left anyway), geography (to a certain extent) and the sense of identity exemplified in the institutions.  And so on and so forth.  This can seem abit airy fairy but then so does everything depending upon the perspective from which you look at it.   Royalty, the UK, the British Commonwealth, Westminster all look silly depending upon who's looking at it.

However, the nation of Scots decided to vote for a parliament with tax-raising powers; their decision.  Silly, till one considers its hefty majority given the historical backdrop.

Yes, they are terribly touchy.  

I think the Southern tribe is becoming very touchy indeed with the rise of UKIP and the BNP.

I know that Asterix book and it's very funny (even in French and the French are not very funny - farce based humour, of course the writer was Belgian I think).
Dave Coull

More than two years ago, on the 8th of July 2007, I started a new topic on Our Scotland. I wrote
Quote:
Who decides on these bits under the "Author" name on this Our Scotland forum? They just appear there, they are not chosen by the authors themselves. Some of them say things like "Findin ma way" or "This is ma life" or "Gaining a reputation". That's fair enough, but what it says under MY name is just plain wrong. It has just one word : "Nationalist". I'll be sixty six next month and I have never in my entire life described myself as a Nationalist. I used to describe myself as an Anarchist, but stopped using that self-description quite a few years ago now, because an anarchist is somebody who is against all government, and I can't be one if I'm campaigning for an independent Scottish government. But no way have I ever been a Nationalist. A supporter of independence, yes, but that's not the same thing. I don't mind if I get described as "wise guy", or "smart alec", or "argumentative old so-and-so", or "troublemaker", or even just plain "trouble", there would at least be some justification for any one of these descriptions, and probably some of the folk on here can think of quite a few more descriptions which they would like to apply to me but which should not be printed on a site accessible to youngsters. But please   -   NOT  "Nationalist"!
Luke P wrote:
I can't control what it says under my name...
No, you can't. Mind you, it doesn't actually say what KIND of nationalist you are. It would be more appropriate if it said "British Nationalist".
Luke P wrote:
I can't control what it says under my name...
What it says under your name appears to be at least partly automatic. To begin with it just says that you are "new", but I think if you reach a certain number of posts that more or less automatically changes to "nationalist", because this is basically a Scottish-nationalist-oriented forum and the built-in assumption appears to be that anybody who posts to it a lot must be a nationalist. I say this is "partly" automatic because in some cases the moderators who run the Our Scotland forum may agree that some other description would be more appropriate, although that would be their decision, and you wouldn't necessarily have any control over what they change it to. In my case, what they eventually changed it to was "Independentista", which, although perhaps not ideal, was more acceptable so far as I was concerned.
Jimbo

Hi Luke P

Quote:
The union itself was no love affair - at best it was a marriage of convenience, pragmatically entered into for economic advantage.


That's rather a misrepresentation of the facts, Luke. May I suggest two excellent books on this subject. They both give the reasons for Scotland's submission to the Union as bribery and threat of invasion from England.

Andrew Fletcher and The Treaty of Union

Scotland's Ruine, Lockhart of Carnwath's Memoirs of the Union.
Fidget

Holebender wrote:
Have you the slightest concept of how a Parliament works? Does the term "minority government" mean anything to you? Explain to us all how, exactly, the SNP could hold a referendum without securing a majority vote in Parliament.

Your pathetic outbursts of the past few days have convinced me that it is highly unlikely you will provide any sort of rational response, but I live in hope.


It need not be an official referendum. It could however have one and with an overwhelming "yes" vote it would be difficult for Westminster to ignore.  That was the pearls of wisdom of one of your own Nats btw on another board.

Far be it for me to argue.
Dave Coull

Fidget wrote:
where's this referendum on independence
I replied
Quote:
I campaigned for a referendum on independence when the Scottish government was a Labour/LibDem coalition, then right after the SNP took office I demonstrated outside the Scottish Parliament demanding "Referendum NOW   -   independence   -   yes or no". It looks like I will finally get what I've been campaigning for next year. Alex Salmond and co plan to put their bill for a referendum to the Scottish parliament in a bit over six months' time, in late January 2010. Now, the Labour, LibDem, and Tory MSPs actually add up to a majority. But I'm not convinced they will all vote against the bill. If some of them abstain, then the bill will be passed. If it does get passed, then the actual referendum will take place in the autumn of next year.
Fidget wrote:
There's nothing stopping the current administration having a referedum
Holebender wrote:
Have you the slightest concept of how a Parliament works? Does the term "minority government" mean anything to you? Explain to us all how, exactly, the SNP could hold a referendum without securing a majority vote in Parliament.
Fidget wrote:
It need not be an official referendum
If a referendum is "unofficial", that makes it much more difficult to get the result generally accepted as being valid. I can think of at least one case where a multi-millionaire put up the money to organise an unofficial "referendum" on some hobbyhorse of his. Nobody took it seriously. So an "unofficial" referendum would have to be an absolute last resort option, and it could be several years before we reach that stage, if we ever do. Meanwhile, Alex Salmond and his colleagues are planning to put their referendum bill before the Scottish Parliament in less than six months' time now. Although supporters of independence are a minority in the Scottish Parliament, I'm not convinced that all MSPs from the Labour, LibDem, and Tory parties will actually show up on the day and vote against that bill. Some of them might have a very convenient sicknote from their doctor, some might show up but abstain from voting, and some unionists might even vote for the referendum bill on the grounds of giving the people a choice. It's possible that, on the day, the votes against might be a minority. If that happens, the actual referendum will take place in the autumn of next year. Although that's a longer wait than I would have liked, it's still quicker than going down the "unofficial" route.
Fidget

Dave Coull wrote:
So an "unofficial" referendum would have to be an absolute last resort option...


No it wouldn't. If Salmond REALLY thought it to be the will of the majority of the Scottish people he would be on it.  Yet he's not. Simple reason being that he doesn't have the support for it. That's what it amounts to and he knows it. He just likes causing a fuss about it without doing anything about it.

Auld windbag is quite appropriate I think since this is the same man asking Westminster for the next 20 years cash upfront for building a new bridge isn't it? Why do that if you've any realistic notion of being independent of the current purse?  And away to Europe he was the other year as well to see if a Scottish Euro would be ok.  A Scottish Euro?  
Alasdair

So!  Who's got £35m lying around to fund a referendum?  I'm fairly sure the SNP doesn't have those sorts of funds available and as Dave said, any such referendum could easily be dismissed as being rigged.

Maybe if your so keen on the referendum Fidget, you could dig deep and provide the funding.  no?
Fidget

Alasdair wrote:
So!  Who's got £35m lying around to fund a referendum?  I'm fairly sure the SNP doesn't have those sorts of funds available and as Dave said, any such referendum could easily be dismissed as being rigged.

Maybe if your so keen on the referendum Fidget, you could dig deep and provide the funding.  no?


As a single parent, I don't have a spare £35million.

Yet no, the SNP won't have either and that will be just because it doesn't have the support it would need to have to generate those funds.  

Thank you for your agreement in this matter.

Laughing
Dave Coull

Fidget wrote:
If Salmond REALLY thought it to be the will of the majority of the Scottish people he would be on it.
He is.

A bit slower than I would have liked, but less than six months to wait now.
Fidget wrote:
He just likes causing a fuss about it without doing anything about it.
He appears to be doing something about it. He's planning to put the referendum bill before the Scottish Parliament in less than six months from now. And there would be no point in holding an "unofficial" referendum. Even if somebody had thirty five million pounds to spare, an unofficial referendum would be a waste of time and money, because the result could so easily be dismissed as meaningless. For this reason, an "unofficial" referendum could only ever be even considered as an absolute last ditch option, and we are nowhere near that absolute last ditch. Going down the "official" route is both quicker and more likely to produce a recognised result.
Holebender

Where has this 35 Million figure come from??? A few years ago a UK government official told a Westminster Parliamentary committee that a referendum, such as the one about a regional assembly in North East England, costs 80p per registered voter. If a Scotland-wide referendum costs more than Three Million to administer I'll be very surprised. That's without campaigning costs, but I doubt if that would be more than a few hundred thousand. Put the total bill for the whole business at about Five Million Pounds Sterling.
Alasdair

Holebender wrote:
Where has this 35 Million figure come from???
It was the figure being touted either earlier this year or late last year by Salmond (I think).  The figure, of course, could've been entirely spurious!
Dave Coull

Holebender wrote:
Where has this 35 Million figure come from???
No idea. I just commented on something somebody else said and quoted the figure they gave.
Holebender wrote:
Put the total bill for the whole business at about Five Million Pounds Sterling.
Now I come to think of it, that first figure does seem EXTREMELY high, so I suspect you're probably nearer the truth. However, while a "saving" of 30 millions pounds is certainly highly significant, the really important point, so far as I am concerned, is that EVEN IF the funds were available for WHATEVER an unofficial referendum might cost, it's STILL not a good idea. Like I said,
Quote:
an unofficial referendum would be a waste of time and money, because the result could so easily be dismissed as meaningless.
and that is why
Quote:
Going down the "official" route is both quicker and more likely to produce a recognised result.
Fidget

Quote:
an unofficial referendum would be a waste of time and money, because the result could so easily be dismissed as meaningless.


The result would be an all round 'No', is what you can't admit more like, even though you know as well as I do the result would be 'NO'.  

Quote:
Going down the "official" route is both quicker and more likely to produce a recognised result.


Quicker? Delay, delay, delay. 2010 looms.  Will Salmond's promised referendum materialise.. referendum by 2010 he said... where is it? Erm.. minority Government isn't an excuse.. it's simply a "no chance of winning this so we'll just stall, stall, stall...)

Just when I think of it... didn't Salmond do the same with his local income tax initiative?  Hype it to the hilt then when it came to the crunch.. shelved it til after the next elections? WoW! What a man!!  
Holebender

It was never referendum by 2010. And a referendum is more than winnable; the result will be a resounding yes vote, which is why Unionists fear it so much.
Fidget

you mean in 2010 then?  We'll see.
Dave Coull

I wrote
Quote:
an unofficial referendum would be a waste of time and money, because the result could so easily be dismissed as meaningless.
Fidget wrote:
The result would be an all round 'No', is what you can't admit
I never "admit" things that aren't true. In my opinion, it's not true the result will be "no", and most certainly not "an all round no". I have said all along that I think the result of a referendum on independence will be a resounding "yes", and that is why I have, for several years, been saying "REFERENDUM NOW". Some supporters of independence may have been less convinced of a decisive "yes" result than I am, and that may be the reason it has taken us so long to get this far. But Alex Salmond and co are committed to putting their referendum bill before the Scottish Parliament in less than six months from now. That being so, the "official" route is now both faster, and more likely to produce a result which will have to be generally accepted.
Fidget wrote:
Delay, delay, delay
Yes, in my opinion there has been unnecessary delay over holding an official referendum on independence.
Fidget wrote:
Will Salmond's promised referendum materialise
I think it might. Of course we can't be certain until the actual vote has taken place in the Scottish Parliament on the referendum bill, and it does remain to be seen how that vote goes, but I am optimistic about this.
Fidget wrote:
referendum by 2010 he said
No he didn't. I do think there has been unnecessary delay, but, to be fair to Alex Salmond, he never said what YOU claim he said. He talked about a referendum IN 2010.
The Lithgae Jambo

Dave Coull wrote:
.
Fidget wrote:
referendum by 2010 he said
No he didn't. I do think there has been unnecessary delay, but, to be fair to Alex Salmond, he never said what YOU claim he said. He talked about a referendum IN 2010.


The plan is to have the Bill passed in 2010 and to hold the referendum on St Andrew's Day 2011

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article5704248.ece
Red Justice

By 2011 there will be a Tory government in Westminster and the Scots will be only too happy to leave the united kingdom.
Fidget

The Lithgae Jambo wrote:
Dave Coull wrote:
.
Fidget wrote:
referendum by 2010 he said
No he didn't. I do think there has been unnecessary delay, but, to be fair to Alex Salmond, he never said what YOU claim he said. He talked about a referendum IN 2010.


The plan is to have the Bill passed in 2010 and to hold the referendum on St Andrew's Day 2011

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article5704248.ece


So........... SNP never said they'd hold a referendum on Scottish Independence by 2010?
Aventinian

Red Justice wrote:
By 2011 there will be a Tory government in Westminster and the Scots will be only too happy to leave the united kingdom.


You wish. The simple fact is that a UK Government that works for everyone's interests without the partisan bigotry evident between Labour and the SNP will only strengthen the Union and make those who cling to the past seem childish.

Moreover, the idea that a new Conservative government will be somehow less popular than the incumbent government, which seems to embarrass itself at every single turn, is bizarre.

Personally I see the referendum bill of course being voted down, whereupon the SNP will get outraged and the fundamentalists will push for the independence issue to be at the centre of their manifesto for the next Holyrood election. Emphasising what is probably their least popular policy will then of course only have the effect of damaging the SNP electorally. They may remain in government, but they probably won't make any sort of gain and be quite frustrated about it.

Oddly enough, this might really be the birth of a 'new politics' in Scotland, where more parties than simply the main two are relevant. Again, Tory bonus.
Dave Coull

Fidget wrote:
referendum by 2010 he said
I wrote:
No he didn't. I do think there has been unnecessary delay, but, to be fair to Alex Salmond, he never said what YOU claim he said. He talked about a referendum IN 2010.
The Lithgae Jambo wrote:
The plan is to have the Bill passed in 2010 and to hold the referendum on St Andrew's Day 2011
I had seen St Andrews Day mentioned before, but it was 30/11/2010, not 30/11/2011.  Presenting the bill to the Scottish Parliament around Rabbie Burns's birthday in late January 2010 would allow TEN MONTHS before a referendum on 30/11/2010, more than ample time for the bill to be debated, voted on, enacted, organised, and allow sufficient time for campaigning by the pro- and anti- camps before the people vote on the issue at the end of November. This is the first time I've seen a whole extra year added on beyond that. That Times report is probably wrong. They could be deliberately sowing misinformation, or it could be a simple mistake. Both deliberate misinformation and human error seem more likely to me than the possibility that Times report is right. But in the unlikely event that it turns out the Times was NOT wrong, well, I already thought late 2010 was unnecessary delay, and yet another year's completely unnecessary delay on top of that would be disgraceful. Fidget's taunts don't  matter as long as the referendum is held in  2010. But if it really WAS delayed until 30/11/2011, it would begin to look like he might have a point, in suggesting folk in the SNP don't really believe the referendum can be won for independence.
Holebender

The Times article must be a misprint. The timetable has always been to introduce the bill early in 2010 and hold the referendum later in the same year.
Corby Boy

Aventinian wrote:
Red Justice wrote:
By 2011 there will be a Tory government in Westminster and the Scots will be only too happy to leave the united kingdom.


You wish. The simple fact is that a UK Government that works for everyone's interests without the partisan bigotry evident between Labour and the SNP will only strengthen the Union and make those who cling to the past seem childish.

Moreover, the idea that a new Conservative government will be somehow less popular than the incumbent government, which seems to embarrass itself at every single turn, is bizarre.

Personally I see the referendum bill of course being voted down, whereupon the SNP will get outraged and the fundamentalists will push for the independence issue to be at the centre of their manifesto for the next Holyrood election. Emphasising what is probably their least popular policy will then of course only have the effect of damaging the SNP electorally. They may remain in government, but they probably won't make any sort of gain and be quite frustrated about it.

Oddly enough, this might really be the birth of a 'new politics' in Scotland, where more parties than simply the main two are relevant. Again, Tory bonus.


Can you tell fortunes too?  Very Happy
Holebender

There will be another Scottish Parliament election before late 2011 so why would this government delay a referendum until after that election? It just doesn't make sense.
Aventinian

Corby Boy wrote:
Can you tell fortunes too?  Very Happy


No, but I can certainly make predictions.

Holebender wrote:
There will be another Scottish Parliament election before late 2011 so why would this government delay a referendum until after that election? It just doesn't make sense.


That would indeed be silly of them.
Holebender

Therefore the Times article contains a misprint.
Fidget

The Lithgae Jambo wrote:

The plan is to have the Bill passed in 2010 and to hold the referendum on St Andrew's Day 2011


Dave Coull wrote:
Fidget's taunts don't  matter as long as the referendum is held in  2010. But if it really WAS delayed until 30/11/2011, it would begin to look like he might have a point, in suggesting folk in the SNP don't really believe the referendum can be won for independence.


Which one is from the SNP 2007 Election Manifesto:

A)  "Publication of a White Paper detailing the concept of Scottish independence in the modern world as part of preparations for offering Scots the opportunity to decide on independence in a referendum, with a likely date of 2010."

B)  "Publication of a White Paper, with a likely date of 2010, detailing the concept of Scottish independence in the modern world as part of preparations for offering Scots the opportunity to decide on independence in a referendum."

C)  "By 2010, the SNP aim to have published a White Paper detailing the concept of Scottish independence in the modern world as part of preparations for offering Scots the opportunity to decide on independence in a referendum."

D)  None of the above

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> UK and Ireland Politics
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter Scottish Top Site - Topsites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites View Site Stats Scottish Politics